A 29 year old otherwise healthy male was admitted after falling with his motorcycle at pretty high speed.

He was alert, GCS 15, no airway problem, no breathing problem, hemodynamically stable all the way.

His injuries : abdominal ( will be discussed below ), closed fracture radius - ulna (rt) and open fracture of the mandible without major tissue loss. No other injuries.

Abdomen : there was diffuse bruising of the abdominal wall and very mild abdominal tenderness. Pelvic X-rays : fracture of left anterosuperior spine.

CT scan of the abdomen : blood around the liver, spleen, lt. paracolic gutter, pelvis ( small amounts in all these locations ), no obvious injury of the liver, spleen, kidneys, pancreas and retroperitoneum. Contusion of the lt side of the abdominal wall near the fractured ASIS, but only a small hematoma.

During diagnostic work up the abdomen distended and the tenderness increased also, so we took him to OR ( he should arrive there anyway for the other two injuries - his forearm and mandibular fracture ). Intraoperative findings :

1.about 500-600 cc of blood in the abdomen, as described on CT.2. There was a 4 cm long tear in the meso of the sigmoid colon with a circumferential irregular tear of the serosa and muscularis - about 4-5 cm long leaving an intact mucosal cuff.3. At the medial border of the cecum - tear of the medial coalesced meso, about 5 cm wide with two longitudinal serosal tears of the cecum, one lateral and one medial, parallel to each other and some 7-8 cm long, with a dark bluish color in the medial wall.Both lesions - 2. and 3. did not look suitable to any other repair except resection.4. There was another 2-3 cm long tear in the mesenterium, 30 cm proximal from the ileocecal valve, without bleeding and with viable adjacent bowel.5. No other injury ; no fecal contamination ; no gross active bleeding; stable patient.What would you do next ?

Your guy is stable; no evidence of other significant intra-abdominalinjuries. I would resect what requires resection and anastomose- as manyanastomoses as required. You probably ask us whether we would go for asort of a subtotal colectomy and ileo-distal sigmoid anastomosis. I do notknow- without being in that abdomen.

BTW: it took me 5 minutes to read and re-read your case report. Brevityis a recipe for obtaining larger input from members.

I have often wondered why so many of uscontinue to do things that are clearly established as inferior. I am nottalking about ignoramii, I am talking about surgeons like Isma, who arewell read, and can qoute the JT June article.

I have often thought of the reason, and I think I know it now. Let meshare my new insight with you: These surgeons are prudently doing what issafer for them, not what is in the best interest of their patient.

Take the case in question. It is clear that either way you may get acomplication. Contrary to what surgeon is implying, stool in the bowel doesnot GUARANTY that there would be no leak . We simply know that thereare FEWER complications with primary anastomosis than with the combinedhartman/closure method, not that there are none.

Now suppose Isma had done a primary anastomosis and the patient had aleak, and died of peritonitis or required multipe operations for salvage.It is likely that the majority of surgeons around him, including hissuperiors and hospital administrators, do not subscribe to for-surgeons.com, don'tknow the color of the cover of the JT, and have never seen the EAST website, if they know what a web site looks like.

Conseqently, at M&M or at an internal audit, Isma would have beencrucified. It matters not that he will bring a bunch of papers beginingwith Stones paper to prove his point, it will be totally ignored.

He would be judged as lacking surgical judgement. We all will loud hisaction, but in Isama's environment (and mine) our vote doesn't count.

In contrast, if he does a Hartman procedure, and there are complications,they will be dismissed as insignificant technical problems.

Only those of us who practice in major University centers, or who arelucky to be surrounded by academically oriented and enlightened surgeonscan afford to do what is best for the patient. When Han says thatIsma chose a safe course, he is right. Isma chose a safe course forhimself, and so would Han, I suppose.

BTW, the 50% circumferential limit for primary repair is from Burch papers. If you look at the data, it is not altogether clear why he chose that number.

No--he is wrong! Penalizing the patient by doing what is NOT in thatpatient's interests--which we all agree is the case here--is WRONG. As soonas one starts putting their interests ahead of the patient. they have starteddown that slippery slope to schlock medicine--and once you start down, it getsharder and harder to get back

You make it sound like someone really made a disasterous decision and did ahorrible mistake. It is not wrong while in the OR for one to use one's bestjudgement and apply a procedure that used to be safe in one's own hands,till you discuss with others and know what they also do. And it is good tocome out of the OR and post a question to see if there is abetter practice. The guidelines that everyone quotes here after all addresspenetrating trauma in particular and not blunt trauma (although I realizethat same have been practiced for comaparble cases of blunt trauma. Good tolearn). The whole idea is not to be merely satisfied with what you used todo. Needless to say we are all in this e-mail list because we want toimprove, and seek the opinion of experts like yourself and of the othercolleagues.

I am now convinced that primary rapair/anastomosis would be thepreferred procedure and the first choice. My next similar patient will enjoyhaving that procedure. My decision is not based on people around me. Myrole, as your and everyone's, is to improve our services, and this may takea political struggle (what else doesn't anyway?). We all want to do theright thing for our patients.

You've given us all a great and sobering insight into the averagecommunity of general surgeons--it stinks, and my hat off to you forfunctioning with such diligence and competence despite these brutalefforts to threaten you and bring you down to their level of thejerks and hacks they obviously are--it is so transparent that thesethreats and pressures arise from their own insecurities in the faceof your excelllent grasp of surgical principles, and that youthreaten them and their own practices--if they would only spend halfthe effort they use to threaten you on simply reading and educatingthemselves, everyone would be better off--We should not be surprisedat the public's growing mistrust of us given how widespread is thisthuggery, which casts a bad image over all of us--they're the oneswho should be run out of town